RE: The Nonsense Rhetoric of Web Accessibility (was: background-image in CSS)

On Sat, 19 Jan 2002, Harry Woodrow wrote:

>  If you claim otherwise, you are insane, deluded, lying, or woefully
> misinformed.  Have you ever thought that in this case it may be you that is
> that.


OK it is important to discuss this issue without taking things personally.

it is a very important issue and frequently troublesome, if not to some
certainly to many recipients.

the weather is a lot colder if your on the outside looking into the warm
building than it is if you are in the building looking out at the person
without a coat

Bob
 > 
> Harry Woodrow
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Kynn Bartlett
> Sent: Saturday, 19 January 2002 2:57 AM
> To: Charles F. Munat; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: The Nonsense Rhetoric of Web Accessibility (was:
> background-image in CSS)
> 
> 
> At 10:53 AM -0800 1/18/02, Charles F. Munat wrote:
> >RUST Randal wrote:
> >>as a journalist, i find the point of view that the user has control over
> >what i determine is essential is simply ludicrous.
> >Yes, and back in the 1960s, many store owners thought that they had
> >a right to decide who they would serve and how. If blacks were
> >served at all, they had to enter through the back door. And when
> >confronted with the discriminatory aspect of this practice, the
> >store owners loudy protested their right to discriminate.
> 
> Wow, this is the week of awful analogies
> 
> >Accessibility is a civil rights issue, and civil rights issues are
> >human rights issues.
> 
> Yes, but what you're saying and what other people are saying is, frankly,
> bizarre, inflammatory, divisive, and downright stupid.
> 
> A background image which is related to the content, which conveys
> content available elsewhere on the page, which can be safely turned
> off and still convey the essential purpose of the page, which
> enhances the ability of the visual user to use the content without
> hurting the accessibility to those who cannot see visual content,
> and which complies with WCAG1 -- which is what Randal proposed,
> if anyone had bothered to read it -- is in NO WAY AT ALL anything
> like store owners discriminating against black people.
> 
> Not at all.  It's not.  It's simply not.  If you claim otherwise,
> you are insane, deluded, lying, or woefully misinformed.
> 
> The author determines the essential purpose of a web page.  This is
> not discrimination.  This is not equivalent to racism.  This is not a
> major threat to accessibility in the slightest.
> 
> The GREATER threat to accessibility is nonsense rhetoric such as
> this, which only serves to make web accessibility activists look
> like complete and utter fools, thus making it harder for those of
> us who are not utterly foolish to stand up and say, "you have to
> make sites which can be used by everyone" while some other loon
> is off saying, "...which means that I, the user, have full
> control over whatever you want to say!"
> 
> I find the comparison to racism to be completely offensive both in
> the minimalization of 1960s-style racism and the absurdity of
> claiming that the existence and proper execution of authorial
> intent -- in which the author is explicitly taking steps to
> ENSURE the accessibility of the essential content of the page --
> to be equated with racism.
> 
> Come on, people.  Of course accessibility is a human rights issue,
> but let's not suddenly make any sort of statements which we don't
> agree with into a Nazi death camp or institutionalized racism
> or slavery or whatever.  Please.
> 
> --Kynn, disgusted
> 
> --
> Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                 http://kynn.com
> Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain            http://idyllmtn.com
> Web Accessibility Expert-for-hire          http://kynn.com/resume
> January Web Accessibility eCourse           http://kynn.com/+d201
> Forthcoming: Teach Yourself CSS in 24 Hours
> 

   ASCII Ribbon Campaign                        accessBob                       
    NO HTML/PDF/RTF in e-mail                   accessys@smartnospam.net       
    NO MSWord docs in e-mail                    Access Systems, engineers       
    NO attachments in e-mail,  *LINUX powered*   access is a civil right 
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
THIS message and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
privileged.  They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity named
above. If you are not the intended recipient, Please notify the sender as
soon as possible. Please DO NOT READ, COPY, USE, or DISCLOSE this
communication to others and DELETE it from your computer systems.  Thanks

Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 15:01:47 UTC